People v. Rainey

2025 IL App (1st) 230639

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 1-23-0639
• Status: Published

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 230639

No. 1-23-0639

Filed August 27, 2025

Third Division

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee. ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 22 CR 5627 ) STEVE RAINEY, ) Honorable ) Alfredo Maldonado Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding

JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Lampkin and Justice Reyes concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Following a jury trial, Steve Rainey was convicted of violating the armed habitual criminal

(AHC) statute and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred

by (1) denying his motion to suppress statements, (2) admitting evidence of recovered

ammunition, and (3) failing to account for mitigating factors in determining his sentence. We find

Rainey’s statements should have been suppressed, as they were obtained during a custodial

interrogation without Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) and were

not admissible under the public safety exception. We also find admission of the statements was not

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new

trial. No. 1-23-0639

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 After jury selection, Rainey filed a motion to suppress statements. Despite the untimely

filing, the trial court permitted a hearing on the motion.

¶4 The hearing evidence consisted solely of testimony from Chicago police officer Sergio

Martinez. As part of a narcotics investigation, Officer Martinez applied for and obtained a search

warrant supported by his own affidavit. The warrant authorized police to search for “narcotics and

any other illegal contraband” in the second-floor apartment of an address on West 81st Street in

Chicago. Rainey was the target of the search warrant. Officer Martinez knew Rainey had prior

convictions for drug and firearm offenses. Officer Martinez and 8 to 10 other officers, each armed

and wearing a bulletproof vest, executed the warrant on the evening of April 18, 2022.

¶5 Upon entering the apartment, the officers located two adults, who were then handcuffed

and placed in a living area. The officers also discovered a locked bedroom door. After demands to

open the door received no response, Officer Martinez kicked the door open, finding Rainey and

his girlfriend inside the room. Rainey told the officers his name was Steve Welch. Both Rainey

and his girlfriend were handcuffed and escorted to the living area to sit with the other two

occupants, while officers stood guard. Rainey’s person was searched. Officer Martinez did not

consider Rainey free to leave and he would have stopped Rainey had he attempted to leave. Armed

officers were positioned at both the front and rear entrances to the building.

¶6 After going “in and out of the bedroom multiple times,” Officer Martinez summoned

Rainey to accompany him to the bedroom. Officer Martinez informed Rainey he was the target of

the search warrant and part of a narcotics investigation. Officer Martinez then asked, “What am I

going to find that should not be here?” Rainey responded, “a gun.” Officer Martinez asked where

it was located, and Rainey replied he did not know. Officer Martinez then asked, “But it’s in here?”

-2- No. 1-23-0639

Rainey nodded and said “yes” in a low voice. Officer Martinez then asked Rainey further questions

about selling “dope” and whether narcotics were present. After their conversation, Rainey was

taken outside and placed in a police vehicle. Officers then searched the bedroom. After removing

a mattress and box spring that were situated atop milk crates, an officer discovered a handgun

inside a zipped black, fanny-pack type bag, which was on the floor amid the crates.

¶7 During his hearing testimony, Officer Martinez explained that, when executing a search

warrant, he asks the subject whether “anything” is present before conducting a search. He does so

to give the subject a chance to avoid their belongings from being “turned upside-down.” Officer

Martinez also answered that he had made sure “safety was accomplished” before he questioned

Rainey. When asked whether he was worried someone could enter the bedroom to interrupt the

search, he answered, “Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the situation.”

¶8 The State argued, inter alia, Rainey’s statements were admissible based on the public

safety exception to the Miranda rule. The court rejected their argument, characterizing it as a

“blanket” that would cover every situation within the public safety exception. Nevertheless, the

court denied the motion to suppress Rainey’s statements, finding the situation a “close case ***

bordering on a custodial interrogation.”

¶9 At trial, Officer Martinez testified consistently with his suppression hearing testimony. In

addition, the jury viewed video footage from Officer Martinez’s body-worn camera (BWC), which

was not played at the suppression hearing. The BWC video depicts Officer Martinez’s interaction

with Rainey more fully than the officer’s testimony. The video shows him kick the door three times

before Rainey opens it, which is inconsistent with the testimony that Officer Martinez entered the

room by kicking the door in. The audio captured their subsequent conversation as follows:

“Officer Martinez: What am I gonna find that shouldn’t be here?

-3- No. 1-23-0639

Rainey: A gun.

Officer Martinez: Huh?

Officer Martinez: Where? Is it underneath the bed?

Rainey: Uh…I think it’s…I don’t know. I’m not going to lie.

Officer Martinez: Where’d you put it, though?

Rainey: I was sick as hell. I ain’t been up.

Officer Martinez: But it’s in here, right?

Rainey: Uh-huh.”

¶ 10 In addition to Officer Martinez, Sergeant Connor Brackin, who also participated in the

execution of the search warrant, testified. The officers testified they found 36 bullets of various

calibers during their search of the bedroom. Only three bullets found on the windowsill matched

the caliber of the recovered handgun. Other bullets were found atop the box spring when the

mattress was removed. More bullets were found in a backpack. Some bullets were visible in the

video played for the jury. Police also found a letter from a hospital addressed to “Steve Welch,” at

the address of the apartment, inside the backpack. The parties stipulated Rainey had two prior

qualifying felony convictions.

¶ 11 In its closing argument, the State relied on Rainey’s response to Officer Martinez’s question

as evidence of his constructive possession of the recovered firearm. The prosecutor referred to his

statements multiple times and replayed the portions of the video in which Rainey answered “a

gun” in response to Officer Martinez’s question.

¶ 12 The jury found Rainey guilty of AHC, and the court sentenced him to 12 years’

imprisonment. This appeal followed.

-4- No. 1-23-0639

¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14 A. Admission of Statements

¶ 15 Rainey first challenges the trial court’s ruling denying his motion to suppress statements.

A bifurcated standard of review applies to a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress statements:

deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings of fact, under a manifest-

weight standard, and de novo review on questions of law, including the ultimate question of

whether the statements should be suppressed. People v. Tucker, 2022 IL App (1st) 172982, ¶ 36.

Only questions of law are at issue here, so our review is de novo. In addition to the suppression

hearing, we may consider evidence adduced at trial. People v. Slater, 228 Ill. 2d 137, 149 (2008).

¶ 16 In Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, the United States Supreme Court established that the fifth

amendment privilege against self-incrimination applied not only in court but in any place a person

faces custodial interrogation. People v. Logan, 2024 IL 129054, ¶ 57. Custodial interrogation is

“ ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or

otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’ ” Id. (quoting Miranda, 384

U.S. at 444). To protect this right, the prosecution may not use statements made by a defendant

during a custodial interrogation unless those statements were accompanied by procedural

safeguards, now known familiarly as Miranda warnings. Id. Accordingly, statements obtained in

violation of Miranda may not be admitted as substantive evidence in the prosecution’s case-in-

chief. Id. ¶ 58.

¶ 17 To determine whether a person was in custody, we conduct two discrete inquiries: “first,

what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, under those

circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the

interrogation and leave.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 59.

-5- No. 1-23-0639

¶ 18 We consider the totality of the circumstances and weigh all relevant factors when

determining whether a person was in custody; no single factor is dispositive. Id. ¶ 60 (citing People

v. Wyma, 2020 IL App (1st) 170786, ¶ 57). Relevant factors include:

“ ‘the location, time, length, mood, and mode of the questioning; (2) the number of police

officers present during the interrogation; (3) the presence or absence of family and friends

of the individual; (4) any indicia of a formal arrest procedure, such as the show of weapons

or force, physical restraint, booking or fingerprinting; (5) the manner by which the

individual arrived at the place of questioning; and (6) the age, intelligence, and mental

makeup of the accused.’ ” Id. (quoting Slater, 228 Ill. 2d at 150).

In addition, “[a]n officer’s belief in the individual’s guilt is relevant only to the extent that ‘the

officer’s views or beliefs were somehow manifested to the individual under interrogation and

would have affected how a reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom

to leave.’ ” Id. (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 325 (1994)). Other factors courts

have deemed relevant to the custody analysis include “ ‘whether and to what extent the person has

been made aware that he is free to refrain from answering questions’ ” and “ ‘the degree of police

control over the environment in which the interrogation takes place, and in particular whether the

suspect’s freedom of movement is physically restrained or otherwise significantly curtailed.’ ” Id.

(quoting Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 641 (7th Cir. 1996)).

¶ 19 Here, the police controlled the environment. Numerous officers were present, and the

entrances were guarded. All occupants were placed in handcuffs and held in a living area. Rainey’s

subsequent movement to and from the bedroom only occurred upon police direction and escort.

Thus, police deprived Rainey of his freedom of movement and action in a significant way. In

addition, Officer Martinez informed Rainey that he was the target of a search warrant in a narcotics

-6- No. 1-23-0639

investigation. Coupled with the question presupposing that the officers would find something “that

should not be there,” Officer Martinez manifested his belief that Rainey was guilty of a crime.

Officer Martinez’s testimony confirmed Rainey was not free to leave. And Rainey was not

informed he was free to refrain from answering questions. Under these circumstances, a reasonable

person would not have felt at liberty to terminate the questioning and leave. Thus, we conclude

Rainey was in custody.

¶ 20 We turn to consider whether Rainey was subjected to an interrogation. Interrogation, for

purposes of Miranda, “refers both to express questioning and to any words or actions on the part

of the police, other than those normally accompanying arrest and custody, that the police should

know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” People v. Olivera,

164 Ill. 2d 382, 391-92 (1995) (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980)).

¶ 21 We believe Officer Martinez should have known his questions were reasonably likely to

elicit an incriminating response from Rainey. Officer Martinez informed Rainey he was the target

of the search warrant and under investigation before asking, “What am I going to find that should

not be here?” The question presupposed the presence of contraband and a response confirming so

would necessarily be incriminating. Officer Martinez testified that he asks the question to give a

suspect the opportunity to avoid having their belongings turned “upside down.” Even if well-

intentioned, the option requires the suspect to choose between disclosing the location of

contraband, thereby incriminating themselves, or having their home ransacked. Thus, Officer

Martinez’s stated purpose does not negate that the question is reasonably likely to elicit an

incriminating response.

¶ 22 In addition, Officer Martinez did not pose a single question, but a line of questioning, with

the purpose of getting Rainey to reiterate his knowledge of the handgun’s presence and reveal its

-7- No. 1-23-0639

precise location. This line of questioning was more characteristic of an interrogation and unlike

routine questioning that normally accompanies an arrest.

¶ 23 We also find Officer Martinez’s subsequent questions about “dope” revealing. 1 Those

questions disclose that the purpose of his conversation with Rainey was to obtain incriminating

evidence from him. See People v. Fort, 2014 IL App (1st) 120037, ¶ 18 (“A question as to whether

a defendant has contraband qualifies as interrogation, likely to elicit an incriminating response.”).

Indeed, the purpose of the warrant was to search for illegal drugs.

¶ 24 We also note that Officer Martinez separated Rainey from the other apartment occupants

before posing questions to him. Questioning a suspect apart from family members, friends, or other

witnesses is common in police interrogation. It prevents others from assisting or influencing the

suspect and enables police to confront the suspect with inconsistencies from others’ statements.

Thus, we view separation as indicative of interrogation. See Wyma, 2020 IL App (1st) 170786,

¶ 57 (factors to consider in determining whether a person was subjected to a custodial interrogation

include the presence of absence of family and friends).

¶ 25 The parties agree Fort is on point but differ on which conclusion it supports. Like this case,

the police in Fort executed a search warrant for narcotics and gathered the occupants of a home in

the living room. Fort, 2014 IL App (1st) 120037, ¶ 3. The defendant asked for permission to

retrieve her baby from a bedroom. Id. ¶ 14. After obtaining permission from his supervisor, an

officer escorted the defendant to the bedroom. Id. When they reached the door, the officer asked

her “ ‘if there [was] anything in the room [police] should know about because the room eventually

is going to get searched anyway.’ ” Id. ¶ 4. The defendant responded that she had some cocaine

1 This questioning was not depicted in the video played at trial. At oral argument, the State indicated it was edited out. As noted, however, Officer Martinez testified at the suppression hearing that this discussion occurred. -8- No. 1-23-0639

inside a pillowcase on the bed. Id. In the majority’s view, the defendant’s need for police

permission and an escort demonstrated her freedom of activity was deprived in a significant way

and, therefore, she was in custody. Id. ¶ 15. The majority likewise found the question was an

interrogation, since the question applied to any contraband the police might find. Id. ¶ 18.

¶ 26 The circumstances surrounding Rainey’s questioning are similar to those in Fort. As noted,

Rainey’s freedom of movement was restrained when multiple officers entered the premises and

gathered the occupants, held under guard, in one location. Furthermore, Officer Martinez’s initial

question was nearly identical to the question put to the defendant in Fort. Thus, like the court in

Fort, we find a custodial interrogation occurred. Yet, the facts supporting that conclusion are more

compelling here. Whereas the officer in Fort asked a single question, Officer Martinez persisted

with a line of questioning regarding both a firearm and narcotics. The State’s attempts to

distinguish Fort are unpersuasive.

¶ 27 Nonetheless, the State contends that even if a custodial interrogation occurred, Rainey’s

statements were admissible under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule. The public

safety exception permits admission of custodial statements not preceded by Miranda warnings

when police reasonably believed questioning was “necessary to secure their own safety or the

safety of the public.” New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 659 (1984). Whether facts support an

exception to the Miranda requirement is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v.

Liddell, 517 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir. 2008).

¶ 28 In Quarles, police pursued a reportedly armed rape suspect inside a supermarket. 467 U.S.

at 651-52. After apprehending and handcuffing the suspect, an officer discovered him wearing an

empty shoulder holster. Id. at 652. The officer asked him where the gun was. Id. The suspect

nodded in the direction of some empty cartons (where a handgun was later recovered) and said,

-9- No. 1-23-0639

“ ‘the gun is over there.’ ” Id. The United States Supreme Court held that a “ ‘public safety’ ”

exception made the statement admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings. Id. at 655. The

Court believed “the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety

outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against

self-incrimination.” Id. at 657. Since the police had reason to believe the suspect had just discarded

a gun in the supermarket, it was necessary for them to ascertain its whereabouts. Id. “[I]t obviously

posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, a customer

or employee might later come upon it.” Id.

¶ 29 The Court described the public safety exception as “narrow.” Id. at 658. It also explained

that the exception’s availability does not depend on the motivation of the individual officers

involved. Id. at 655-56. The exception accounts for a “kaleidoscopic situation *** where

spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day.” Id. at

656. An officer confronting such a situation “would act out of a host of different, instinctive, and

largely unverifiable motives—their own safety, the safety of others, and perhaps as well the desire

to obtain incriminating evidence from the suspect.” Id. So the exception “should not be made to

depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the

arresting officer.” Id. It applies so long as the questioning “relate[s] to an objectively reasonable

need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger.” Id. at 659 n.8. The exception,

however, does not apply when officers pose “questions designed solely to elicit testimonial

evidence from a suspect.” Id. at 658-59.

¶ 30 The State cites federal appellate decisions where the public safety exception was applied

to circumstances akin to those before us, such as in United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir.

2004). There, police had gone to a house to conduct a “ ‘safety search’ ” after receiving a report

- 10 - No. 1-23-0639

that Newton, who was on parole, had threatened to kill his mother and her husband and kept a gun

in a shoe box. Id. at 663. Officers handcuffed Newton, seated him in a chair, and accounted for the

home’s other occupants. Id. An officer then asked Newton whether he had any “ ‘contraband’ ” in

the house. Id. Newton motioned toward a shoe box on a table and said, “ ‘only what is in the box.’ ”

Id. at 663-64. The officer asked what was in the box and Newton responded, “ ‘a two and two.’ ”

Id. at 664. The officer opened the box and discovered a .22-caliber automatic firearm, a magazine,

and loose rounds. Id. The officer asked Newton what he was doing with a gun while on parole,

and Newton replied that he kept it for protection. Id.

¶ 31 Citing Quarles, the Second Circuit found the circumstances justified unwarned

questioning. The officers had been informed Newton kept a gun in the home and he had threatened

to kill his mother and her husband. Id. at 678. Thus, the police could believe “Newton was

dangerous, that he and his family were involved in a volatile domestic dispute, and that, until the

gun was found, there was a serious and immediate risk of harm to anyone in the apartment.” Id.

The court rejected the argument that the public safety exception did not apply since the question

inquired about “contraband” instead of weapons. Id. at 678-79. It noted that “public safety

questions are framed spontaneously in dangerous situations” where “[p]recision crafting cannot be

expected.” Id. at 678. The broad question encompassed firearms and Newton’s response reveals

he understood its meaning. Id. at 679. The Newton court followed similar decisions. See United

States v. Williams, 181 F.3d 945, 953 (8th Cir. 1999) (finding response to the question, “ ‘is there

anything we need to be aware of?’ ” admissible); see also United States v. Reyes, 353 F.3d 148,

150, 155 (2d Cir. 2003) (the same for whether a defendant had “ ‘anything on him that [could] hurt

[the officer] or anyone on [the] field team’ ”).

- 11 - No. 1-23-0639

¶ 32 Although the Newton court found admissible the responses to questions asked before the

gun was found, the court determined the public safety exception did not extend to the unwarned

questioning that occurred after. See Newton, 369 F.3d at 679-80. When police recovered the

firearm, it was clear Newton would be formally arrested, and the weapon no longer posed a danger.

Id. at 679. This court applied Newton’s distinction in People v. Hannah, 2013 IL App (1st) 111660,

¶ 47, finding the public safety exception did not apply when police asked, “ ‘whose gun is this?’ ”

after already recovering a firearm. See People v. Roundtree, 135 Ill. App. 3d 1075, 1079-80 (1985)

(public safety exception found inapplicable when all occupants were handcuffed and positioned

away from their vehicle and officer asked who owned a suitcase found in the vehicle).

¶ 33 Similarly, the Seventh Circuit applied the public safety exception in a case that, like this

one, involved execution of a warrant. In United States v. Are, 590 F.3d 499, 504 (7th Cir. 2009),

police obtained a warrant to arrest Antwan Daniels for drug conspiracy. 2 After being admitted to

his home, officers handcuffed Daniels and brought him to the living room along with his wife and

two young children. Id. An FBI agent asked Daniels whether there were any weapons in the house.

Id. He replied that an AK-47 rifle was in his bedroom, where officers eventually found it. Id. at

504-05.

¶ 34 The court found the FBI agent’s question was “within the ‘public safety’ exception”

because it “seemed ‘reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.’ ” Id. at 506 (quoting

Quarles, 467 U.S. at 656). Factors justifying the unwarned question were that the officers knew

Daniels had a history of drug and weapons offenses, “guns are the tools of the drug trade,” and

either he—despite being handcuffed—or his family members, who would be “free to roam the

house as the officers were leaving,” could potentially access a weapon the officers had not yet

2 Four codefendants were charged with various counts, and their appeals were consolidated. Are, 590 F.3d at 504. - 12 - No. 1-23-0639

discovered and secured. Id.; see United States v. Edwards, 885 F.2d 377, 384 (7th Cir. 1989)

(finding that questioning a known drug dealer about whether they possess a gun falls within the

public safety exception).

¶ 35 Our research reveals, however, that Newton and Are do not fully represent the federal

appellate courts’ view of the public safety exception. Other courts have found the exception does

not apply in comparable situations, as in United States v. Benard, 680 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2012).

There, a trooper handcuffed the defendant after finding drugs on his person during a traffic stop.

Id. at 1209. The trooper then asked, without Miranda warnings, what else he might find in Benard’s

vehicle. Id. Benard replied that his girlfriend might have left a gun in the car. Id. A loaded handgun

was later found inside the vehicle. Id. The Tenth Circuit reasoned Miranda warnings are not

required for an officer to ask a suspect if they have any weapons, so long as the officer has “ ‘reason

to believe (1) that the defendant might have (or recently have had) a weapon, and (2) that someone

other than police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm with it.’ ” Id. at 1212 (quoting

United States v. DeJear, 552 F.3d 1196, 1201 (10th Cir. 2009)). The trooper lacked any reason to

believe either of those circumstances were present when he questioned Benard. Benard was

already in custody outside of the vehicle and no facts indicated someone other than the police

might gain access to any weapons inside. See id.; United States v. Kissell, No. 5:18-CR-40001,

2019 WL 6492650 (D. Kan. Dec. 3, 2019) (following Benard and rejecting the public safety

exception in comparable circumstances for the question “ ‘Is there anything in the vehicle I should

know about?’ ”).

¶ 36 Accordingly, federal court decisions do not provide us with clear guidance. In any event,

we are bound only by decisions of the United States and Illinois Supreme Courts, as lower federal

court decisions may be considered only as persuasive authority. People v. Boss, 2025 IL App (1st)

- 13 - No. 1-23-0639

221855, ¶ 34. To date, the Illinois Supreme Court has addressed the public safety exception just

once.

¶ 37 In People v. Williams, 173 Ill. 2d 48 (1996), our supreme court, relying on Quarles, found

the exception applied to the facts in that case. When police arrived at the scene of a double

shooting, the surviving victim informed them the shooter’s name was Frank Williams. Id. at 55.

Officers obtained a warrant to arrest Williams and went to an address where he was believed to be

staying. Id. Williams’s sister answered the door and permitted the officers to enter. Id. After

Williams was found hiding in the attic, he was arrested, placed in handcuffs, and taken to the

backyard. Id. at 55-56. While frisking Williams, a detective asked him if he had any guns, knives,

or needles on him. Id. at 56. Williams replied that he did not, but he had a gun in his coat in the

attic. Id. A loaded revolver was found just as he had described. Id.

¶ 38 Williams unsuccessfully moved to suppress his unwarned statement. Id. at 75-76. The

supreme court found Williams was entitled to Miranda warnings because he was in custody and

interrogated, but the public safety exception applied. Id. at 77. The court noted that the loaded gun

was in the attic of a house occupied by two families, police officers were on the scene, and the

concealed gun posed a threat to everyone present. Id. Under those circumstances, “it [was]

reasonable to find that [the detective] was attempting to secure the safety of himself, his fellow

officers, and innocent persons in the area from immediate danger when he asked [Williams]

whether he was carrying any weapons.” Id. at 77-78. The court also noted that the detective did

not ask Williams any other questions at that time, indicating his question was not designed to elicit

testimonial evidence. Id. at 78.

¶ 39 In this case, the firearm found in the bedroom posed a potential threat to the police officers

and others at the scene. And when officers are executing a search warrant, an objective need exists

- 14 - No. 1-23-0639

to protect their safety and the safety of others. But Officer Martinez’s question, “What am I going

to find that should not be here?” did not relate to an objectively reasonable need to protect anyone

from an immediate danger. By the time he put the question to Rainey, the officers had control of

the premises. The officers were not in an open supermarket, as in Quarles, or a building with

multiple unrestrained occupants, as in Williams. Rainey and all other apartment occupants were

handcuffed and guarded. The question was limited to the bedroom, which the officers were about

to search. No one other than the officers were going to access the bedroom by that point. Rainey

was only present because officers directed him there. Unlike Quarles and Williams, there was no

basis to believe Rainey was recently armed and he had already been searched when Officer

Martinez questioned him. Thus, the situation was not “kaleidoscopic,” and no immediate danger

was apparent to prompt a need for answers to questions without Miranda warnings. Quarles, 467

U.S. at 656, 659 n.8.

¶ 40 Furthermore, after asking, “What am I going to find that should not be here?” Officer

Martinez followed with questions about “dope.” Those questions related to Officer Martinez’s drug

investigation, which was the purpose of the search warrant. The subsequent questioning about

drugs distinguishes this case from Quarles and Williams, where officers did not ask about anything

other than weapons. Officer Martinez’s further questioning indicates that his initial question did

not “relate to an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate

danger” (id. at 659 n.8) but was “designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect” (id.

at 659).

¶ 41 Also significant, Officer Martinez’s explanation for questioning Rainey did not relate to

safety. He was attempting to provide Rainey with an opportunity to avoid having his belongings

turned “upside down.” In addition, Officer Martinez testified he had already ensured safety before

- 15 - No. 1-23-0639

bringing Rainey to the bedroom and questioning him. The video shows the bedroom and apartment

were cluttered. Defense counsel described it as a “hoarder’s nightmare on steroids.” Yet, Officer

Martinez never stated that the condition of the room gave him a safety concern, such as a concealed

hazard. Instead, his explanation indicated he simply wanted to make his task of locating contraband

easier by inducing Rainey to assist the officers, which would necessarily elicit an incriminating

statement. In response to the prosecutor’s question, Officer Martinez testified he might be

concerned that someone could enter the room. But his answer was hypothetical, stating that it

depended on the situation. He offered no facts indicating he had such a concern on this occasion.

Thus, Officer Martinez’s testimony dispelled that his questions were “reasonably prompted by a

concern for the public safety.”

¶ 42 For these reasons, we find police obtained Rainey’s statements in a custodial interrogation

without Miranda warnings and his statements were not admissible pursuant to the public safety

exception. Thus, the statements should have been suppressed and excluded from the State’s case-

in-chief.

¶ 43 Although we find a Miranda violation occurred, a violation of Miranda does not

necessarily require reversal; improper admission of a defendant’s statements is subject to harmless

error review. Logan, 2024 IL 129054, ¶ 80. Yet, admission of an unlawfully obtained confession

is “rarely harmless error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Cox, 2023 IL App (1st)

170761, ¶ 56. Differing standards apply in harmless error analysis depending on whether the error

was constitutional or purely evidentiary. See People v. Stull, 2014 IL App (4th) 120704, ¶ 104. If

the error involved a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the State must demonstrate

beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. Cox, 2023 IL App (1st)

170761, ¶ 56. If the error was purely evidentiary, the State need only show there is no reasonable

- 16 - No. 1-23-0639

probability the jury would have acquitted the defendant absent the error. Stull, 2014 IL App (4th)

120704, ¶ 104. The improper admission of a statement obtained when police failed to give

Miranda warnings is not a violation of a constitutional right, but a violation of Miranda’s

prophylactic rule. Logan, 2024 IL 129054, ¶ 51. Even so, both federal and Illinois courts have

applied the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in harmless error analysis of Miranda violations.

See, e.g., People v. Wright, 2016 IL App (5th) 120310, ¶ 33; Fort, 2014 IL App (1st) 120037, ¶ 19;

Newton, 369 F.3d at 679.

¶ 44 In harmless error review, courts may “(1) focus on the error to determine whether it might

have contributed to the conviction, (2) examine the other evidence in the case to see if

overwhelming evidence supports the conviction, and (3) determine whether the improperly

admitted evidence is merely cumulative or duplicates properly admitted evidence.” People v.

Salamon, 2022 IL 125722, ¶ 121.

¶ 45 To convict Rainey of the AHC charge, the State had to prove he (1) either received, sold,

possessed, or transferred any firearm and (2) had previously been convicted two or more times of

any of the predicate offenses listed in the AHC statute. People v. Harris, 2024 IL App (3d) 230406,

¶ 16. The State alleged Rainey possessed the handgun found in the bedroom. Possession can be

either actual or constructive. People v. Brooks, 2023 IL App (1st) 200435, ¶ 39. As in this case,

when the firearm was found near, and not on the defendant’s person, the State must prove the

defendant had constructive possession of the firearm. Id. Constructive possession exists where the

defendant (1) had knowledge of the presence of the weapon and (2) exercised immediate and

exclusive control over the area where the weapon was found. Id. “Knowledge may be demonstrated

by evidence of the defendant’s ‘acts[, declarations,] or conduct, from which it can be inferred that

he knew the contraband existed in the place where it was found.’ ” Id. ¶ 40 (quoting People v.

- 17 - No. 1-23-0639

McCurine, 2019 IL App (1st) 160817, ¶ 24). “Control is established when the defendant has the

intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over the weapon, even if he lacks personal

present dominion over it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 41.

¶ 46 Here, Rainey’s statements were the most significant evidence the State presented to prove

his constructive possession of the handgun. His responses to Officer Martinez’s queries revealed

his knowledge of the handgun’s presence in the bedroom. Apart from his statements, the State

presented slim evidence to support Rainey’s constructive possession of the handgun. He was not

the only occupant of the apartment or even the bedroom. Cf. id. ¶ 42 (citing “the defendant was

the only individual inside the apartment when the search warrant was executed” as a factor

supporting constructive possession). And the single piece of mail addressed to “Steve Welch” at

that address and the handgun were found in separate bags. Cf. id. (revolver found under a bed

inside a safe, which also contained multiple documents with the defendant’s name and mail

addressed to him).

¶ 47 More important, the State relied on Rainey’s statements in closing argument. The

prosecutor repeatedly pointed to the statements as proof of Rainey’s possession of the firearm and

replayed the video of the statements. Cf. Wright, 2016 IL App (5th) 120310, ¶ 34 (finding

admission of statements obtained in violation of Miranda was not harmless error when prosecutor

relied on the statements in closing argument).

¶ 48 For these reasons, we cannot conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not

contribute to the verdict or that there is no reasonable probability the jury would have acquitted

Rainey absent the error. Therefore, the error was not harmless, and we must vacate the conviction.

¶ 49 Rainey did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and only seeks reversal of his

conviction and remand for a new trial. Nonetheless, in finding reversible error, we are obliged to

- 18 - No. 1-23-0639

consider whether the evidence was sufficient since, if not, double jeopardy would bar retrial.

People v. Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d 322, 367 (2008). The inquiry asks “whether, after viewing the evidence

in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to

prove Rainey guilty of AHC. A firearm was found in a room where Rainey was present.

Circumstantial evidence supported an inference that he exercised dominion and control over the

room. The hospital letter addressed to him, using his alias, at that location implies he had resided

there for some time. And Rainey’s statements proved he had knowledge of the firearm’s presence.

We cannot exclude erroneously admitted evidence in our analysis. See id. Even though another

person was in the bedroom, more than one person can constructively possess a firearm at the same

time. People v. Williams, 2020 IL App (1st) 163417, ¶ 76. Thus, double jeopardy does not bar

retrial, and we remand this matter for a new trial.

¶ 50 B. Ammunition Evidence

¶ 51 We exercise our discretion to consider Rainey’s contention regarding the admissibility of

evidence related to the recovered bullets because this issue is likely to recur on remand. See Pielet

v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 56.

¶ 52 Rainey argues the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of

the recovered bullets. He contends this evidence was irrelevant, amounted to evidence of other

crimes, and was prejudicial.

¶ 53 We review a trial court’s decisions regarding the admission of evidence for an abuse of

discretion. People v. Thompson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171265, ¶ 84. “An abuse of discretion occurs

when the trial court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person

would take the position adopted by the trial court.” Id.

- 19 - No. 1-23-0639

¶ 54 Rainey contends the bullets are irrelevant since all but three did not match the caliber of

the handgun that was recovered. In denying Rainey’s motion in limine, the trial court stated,

“[W]hile he’s not being charged specifically for the ammunition, I think there is some relevancy

even if it’s not necessarily the same caliber as the gun that’s recovered.” We agree. Evidence is

relevant if it has “ ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the

evidence.’ ” People v. Bush, 2023 IL 128747, ¶ 62 (quoting Ill. R. Evid. 401 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011)).

The consequential facts here related to Rainey’s constructive possession of a firearm. Evidence of

the presence of bullets tends to make the presence of a firearm more probable than it would be

without the evidence. Bullets and firearms are inherently connected, and a reasonable person

would expect that where one is found the other is likely present. See People v. Free, 94 Ill. 2d 378,

415-16 (1983) (finding that firearm-related items, including bullets of different calibers, were

relevant to prove constructive possession of a firearm). In addition, since the bullets were so

numerous, some were in plain view, and some were in a backpack connected to Rainey, evidence

of the bullets tended to make it more probable that Rainey knew a firearm was present, regardless

of whether the calibers matched. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding

evidence of the bullets relevant.

¶ 55 Next, Rainey argues evidence of the bullets was unduly prejudicial because it amounted to

evidence of another crime. The other crimes doctrine bars the State from introducing evidence of

crimes for which the defendant is not on trial if relevant only to establish their propensity to commit

crime. People v. Thingvold, 145 Ill. 2d 441, 452 (1991). This doctrine, however, is only implicated

by evidence of a crime “separate, distinct, and disconnected” from the crime for which the

defendant is charged. People v. Pikes, 2013 IL 115171, ¶ 20. Here, recovery of the bullets and the

- 20 - No. 1-23-0639

firearm occurred during the same event and in the same place. Thus, evidence of the bullets was

not separate, distinct, or disconnected from the charged offense. Consequently, the other crimes

doctrine is not implicated in this case.

¶ 56 For these reasons, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State

to present evidence of the recovered bullets. Nevertheless, the trial court is not foreclosed from

considering this issue anew on retrial to account for the suppression of Rainey’s statements and

any other considerations the parties may raise.

¶ 57 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 58 Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new

trial. Due to our disposition, we do not address Rainey’s contentions regarding sentencing.

¶ 59 Reversed and remanded.

- 21 - No. 1-23-0639

People v. Rainey, 2025 IL App (1st) 230639

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 22-CR- 5627; the Hon. Alfredo Maldonado, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, Rachel S. Sansonetti, and for Brooke A. Winterhalter, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, Appellant: of Chicago, for appellant.

Attorneys Eileen O’Neill Burke, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (John E. for Nowak, Whitney Bond, and Jenna McMahon, Assistant State’s Appellee: Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

- 22 -